a. Unity of Origin and Beliefs. Such unity is expressed by a people's shared belief that their ancestors all emerged from the same origin place (pacarina). Common origin may also be related to worship of particular divinities (huacas) which pertain to the whole ethnic group. The mummies (mallquis) of the ancestors are a further symbol of unity.

b.Unity of Language or Dialect. There were numerous languages in the Andean area before the Inca conquest. Cultural and ethnic identity was related to language and, in fact, the indigenous names for these languages, like runa simi, often mean the "speech of people".

c. Common dress. Pedro Pizarro (1978 [1571]: chapter 16) states that the various ethnic groups were known by their dress. Acosta (1940 [1590:1:302 [Book 6, Chapter 16]) notes that it was illegal to change or modify the ethnic costume. Molina ("El Cusqueno" 1943 [ca. 1575]:9) specifies that the ethnic costume was similar to the dress worn by the principal huaca of the group. Cieza (1984 [1553]) and Guaman Poma (1980 [1615]) provide the best details on ethnic costume.

d. Socio-political Unity. Political units were of varying sizes but Rostworowski interprets the largest political groupings of the Late Intermediate Period to encompass no more than a single ethnic group.

These attributes will be used to try to trace the development of ethnic identity in the Huamachuco area through time. It is, of course, impossible to consistently identify all these attributes at all times. Moreover, the attributes that can be identified may lead to conflicting definitions of ethnic boundaries, and the criteria for the definitions are often in flux.

A convenient starting point is Cieza's (1984 [1553]:235-236) comment that "la prouincia de Guamachuco es semejable a la de Caxamaica y los Indies son de vna lengua y trage y en las religiones y sacrificios se y mi-tauan los vnos a los otros .. .⁽¹⁾ This comment, which succinctly cites three of the four types of attributes which define ethnic groups, has led some modem scholars to consider Caja-marca and Huamachuco as a single ethnic group, or, at least, very closely related ethnic groups (Silva Santisteban 1985; 1986a; 1986b; Castro 1992:xxi-xxii). Cieza de Leon (1984 [1553]:226) also reports that Cajamarca was "... la cabe9a de las prouincias a ella comarcanas, y de muchos de los valles de los llanos. ⁽²⁾ This comment relates to Cajamarca's position in the Inca administrative system and does not imply that the whole area administered by the Incas from Cajamarca constituted a single political unit during the Late Intermediate Period. Cieza's comments, though, do provide information on all four types of attributes cited by Rostworowski. In a strict sense, this information pertains to the early Colonial Period but we can assume, and it is clearly Cieza's intention, that the description applies to the late prehispanic period also. In the following sections I will explore other sources of information which allow us to evaluate Cieza's statements.

(1).-The province of Huamachuco is similar to that of Ca-jamarca and the Indians are of one language and dress and they imitate each other in religion and sacrifices. (All translations by the author)
(2).- Cajamarca was the capital of the provinces surrounding it and of many of the valleys of the coast.

---

Retornar

Avanzar

---

Barth (1969:13-14) notes that there is no simple correlation between shared cultural attributes and ethnic identity. Ethnic groups use cultural attributes as signals of their identity, but the critical feature of ethnic groups is self-ascription by the members of the group and ascription by others. Cultural attributes signal the social boundaries of the ethnic groups and may include dress, language, house type, general lifestyle, and basic values of morality and excellence (ibid:\^). The defining characteristics are often behavioral or cognitive and definitions are often in a state of flux (e.g., dark 1994; Hill 1992; Mahmood and Armstrong 1992; Rasmussen 1992). The cross- cultural variability in attributes that might signal ethnic affiliation means that it is impossible to specify universal archaeological correlates of ethnic identity.

Referring specifically to groups in the Andean area, Rostworowski (1990:16-21) suggests that the following cultural attributes were considered key identifiers of ethnic groups; these attributes, of documented significance in early historic times, would also have been important in late prehistoric times.

a. Unity of Origin and Beliefs. Such unity is expressed by a people's shared belief that their ancestors all emerged from the same origin place (pacarina). Common origin may also be related to worship of particular divinities (huacas) which pertain to the whole ethnic group. The mummies (mallquis) of the ancestors are a further symbol of unity.

b.Unity of Language or Dialect. There were numerous languages in the Andean area before the Inca conquest. Cultural and ethnic identity was related to language and, in fact, the indigenous names for these languages, like runa simi, often mean the "speech of people".

c. Common dress. Pedro Pizarro (1978 [1571]: chapter 16) states that the various ethnic groups were known by their dress. Acosta (1940 [1590:1:302 [Book 6, Chapter 16]) notes that it was illegal to change or modify the ethnic costume. Molina ("El Cusqueno" 1943 [ca. 1575]:9) specifies that the ethnic costume was similar to the dress worn by the principal huaca of the group. Cieza (1984 [1553]) and Guaman Poma (1980 [1615]) provide the best details on ethnic costume.

d. Socio-political Unity. Political units were of varying sizes but Rostworowski interprets the largest political groupings of the Late Intermediate Period to encompass no more than a single ethnic group.

These attributes will be used to try to trace the development of ethnic identity in the Huamachuco area through time. It is, of course, impossible to consistently identify all these attributes at all times. Moreover, the attributes that can be identified may lead to conflicting definitions of ethnic boundaries, and the criteria for the definitions are often in flux.

A convenient starting point is Cieza's (1984 [1553]:235-236) comment that "la prouincia de Guamachuco es semejable a la de Caxamaica y los Indies son de vna lengua y trage y en las religiones y sacrificios se y mi-tauan los vnos a los otros .. .⁽¹⁾ This comment, which succinctly cites three of the four types of attributes which define ethnic groups, has led some modem scholars to consider Caja-marca and Huamachuco as a single ethnic group, or, at least, very closely related ethnic groups (Silva Santisteban 1985; 1986a; 1986b; Castro 1992:xxi-xxii). Cieza de Leon (1984 [1553]:226) also reports that Cajamarca was "... la cabe9a de las prouincias a ella comarcanas, y de muchos de los valles de los llanos. ⁽²⁾ This comment relates to Cajamarca's position in the Inca administrative system and does not imply that the whole area administered by the Incas from Cajamarca constituted a single political unit during the Late Intermediate Period. Cieza's comments, though, do provide information on all four types of attributes cited by Rostworowski. In a strict sense, this information pertains to the early Colonial Period but we can assume, and it is clearly Cieza's intention, that the description applies to the late prehispanic period also. In the following sections I will explore other sources of information which allow us to evaluate Cieza's statements.

(1).-The province of Huamachuco is similar to that of Ca-jamarca and the Indians are of one language and dress and they imitate each other in religion and sacrifices. (All translations by the author)
(2).- Cajamarca was the capital of the provinces surrounding it and of many of the valleys of the coast.

---

Retornar

Avanzar

---